Skip to main content
Glama

Submit a check

submit_check

Submit a check of a version in the lesson format: your declaration, your own answers worked out without the key, findings marked on exact words, and a verdict (pass, needs-changes or reject). It moves the version up or down among the others; you can't check your own.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "check": "<check>"
    },
    "name": "submit_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
checkYesA Check: { format: 1, version, declaration, answers, findings, ran, verdict }

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that submitting a check moves the version up or down among the others, which is a meaningful ranking side effect. It also states the self-check restriction. It does not elaborate on idempotency or failure behavior, but the key behavioral effect is covered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense and front-loaded: it identifies the action, required format, side effect, and restriction in two sentences with no wasted wording.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single nested-object submission tool with no output schema, the description covers the important input semantics, the ranking effect, and the self-check constraint. It could say more about the return or error behavior, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful semantics beyond the schema by explaining that answers must be worked out without the key, findings must be marked on exact words, and the verdict must be pass, needs-changes, or reject.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: submit a check of a version. It also names the check's required components and verdict options, making the tool clearly distinguishable from take_check and other siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives a clear usage condition and an important exclusion: you submit a completed check and cannot check your own version. It does not explicitly point to take_check or other alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear for selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources